The following excerpts are from the book entitled The Jews of Islam, written by the late Professor Bernard Lewis. He was an olden styled scholar and considered biased against Islam by many, but whatever the case may be even he was forced to grudgingly concede the greatness of Islam and the superiority of Muslim rule. I have used the following to address some of the lingering misconceptions and misunderstandings about the institutional features such as the dhimma (pact/contract), or more appropriately the Ahl al-Dhimma (the people of the pact/contract), and the Jizya, or the taxation policies on the non-Muslim residents of Islamic states. In contrast to the commentators and other theologians, the jurists are less ferocious and more concerned with the fiscal than the symbolic aspect of the jizya. Abu Ubayd (770-838), author of a classical treatise on taxation, insists that the dhimmis must not be burdened beyond their capacity, nor must they be caused to suffer. The great jurist Abu Yusuf (731?-808) the chief qadi (judge) of the caliph Harun al-Rashid, rules explicitly against such treatment: No one of the people of the dhimma should be beaten in order to exact a payment of the jizya, nor made to stand in the hot sun, nor should hateful things be inflicted upon their bodies, or anything of that sort. Rather, they should be treated with leniency. ... Several points must be noted in considering these and other similar passages. First, the jurists, with their more humane and also more practical attitude, belong to the early period of Islam, when it was confident and expanding; the commentators cited were writing in a period of contraction and constraint, when Islam was under threat both at home and abroad. Second, there can be no doubt that it is the attitudes of the jurists, rather than of the commentators and other theologians, THAT MORE ACCURATELY REFLECT THE PRACTICE OF MUSLIM RULERS AND ADMINISTRATORS. Most of these, in the treatment of dhimmis, as in many other matters, failed to meet the exacting demand of their religious advisers and critics. The rules that some of the Ulema laid down on the collection of the jizya and related matters belong more to the history of mentalities than of institutions... In the early centuries of Islamic rule, THERE WAS LITTLE OR NO ATTEMPT AT FORCIBLE CONVERSIONS, THE SPREAD OF THE FAITH BEING EFFECTED RATHER BY PERSUASION AND INDUCEMENT. The rate and scale of conversion are difficult to assess from the available evidence, and some scholars have argued that as late as the crusades, NON-MUSLIMS STILL CONSTITUTED A MAJORITY OF THE POPULATION. It is clear, however, that large number of Christians, Jews, and Zoroastrians ADOPTED the Muslim religion and became part of Islamic society. ...In the core countries of the Middle East, in Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Palestine, and to a lesser extent Iraq, Christianity showed greater endurance than in North Africa, and Christian minorities survived in significant numbers. The reason may be that in these countries the Christians enjoyed the same advantage, if we may call it that, as the Jews: experience in survival. In Iraq they had been SUBORDINATE to the Zoroastrian faith; in Egypt and the Syrian lands, THOUGH SHARING THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION WITH THE RULERS OF THE BYZANTINE EMPIRE, they were of different sects AND SUBJECT TO DISCRIMINATION AND EVEN AT TIMES PERSECUTION. FOR MANY OF THE ADHERENTS OF THE EASTERN CHURCHES, THE ADVENT OF ISLAM AND THE TRANSFER OF THEIR COUNTRIES FROM CHRISTIAN TO MUSLIM RULE BROUGHT A MARKED IMPROVEMENT IN THEIR CIRCUMSTANCES, AND A GREATER DEGREE OF RELIGIOUS FREEDOM THAN THEY HAD PREVIOUSLY ENJOYED... In the vast empire which they had created by conquest, the Muslims at first found themselves as a dominant but small minority. Their religion provided them with certain basic religious principles by which to rule their subject populations; THE OLDER REGIMES THEY HAD REPLACED BEQUEATHED THEM TRADITIONS, PROCEDURES, AND EVEN PERSONNEL WITH WHICH TO PUT THESE PRINCIPLES IN PRACTICE, OR TO MODIFY THEM. Certain features of the situation in the former Persian and Byzantine lands that constituted the new Islamic caliphate are very relevant to the understanding of Muslim policies toward other religions. Perhaps most important, the Middle Eastern region was and had for long been one of ethnic and religious pluralism. True, the Greek orthodox Christian masters of the Byzantine Empire and the Persian orthodox Zoroastrian master of Iran had been trying, in the not-so-distant past, TO IMPOSE THEIR FAITH AND IDENTITY ON OTHER RELIGIOUS AND ETHNIC GROUPS. But these efforts had failed, and the resulting tensions and resentments made the Muslim conquerors MORE WELCOME, AND THEIR PRESENCE, AFTER THE CONQUEST, MORE ACCEPTABLE. Apart from one episode, of brief duration and minor significance, the Arab Muslim rulers of the new empire did not repeat the errors of their predecessors but instead RESPECTED THE PATTERN OF PLURALISM THAT HAD EXISTED SINCE ANTIQUITY. This pattern, was not one of equality, but rather of dominance by one group and, usually, a hierarchic sequence of the others. Though this order did not concede equality, it permitted peaceful coexistence. While one group might dominate, it did not on the whole insist on suppressing or absorbing the others. The new dominant group was variously defined- at first as Arab Muslims, then simple as Muslims. AND WITH THE REPLACEMENT OF AN ETHNO-RELIGIOUS BY A PURELY RELIGIOUS DEFINITION, ACCESS TO THE DOMINANT GROUP WAS OPEN TO ALL, thus making it possible, in the course of centuries, for a dominant minority to become an overwhelming majority. This change, too, was facilitated by a feature observable in the Middle East through most of its recorded history- a pattern of fluctuation, of change, even of fusion between different communal, national, territorial, cultural, and legal identities. It is an essential part of human behavior to divide the world into ourselves and the rest. THE ANCIENT MIDDLE EAST HAD KNOWN MANY SUCH DIVISIONS, KINSMEN AND STRANGERS, JEWS AND GENTILES, GREEKS AND BARBARIANS, CITIZENS, METICS, AND ALIENS, AS WELL AS OTHERS. A classification ALREADY FAMILIAR with Jews and Christians was BETWEEN BELIEVERS AND UNBELIEVERS. In Islamic times this came to be by far the most important line of division, overshadowing all others.... The Quran recognizes Judaism, Christianity, and a rather problematic third party, the religion of the Sabians, as EARLIER, INCOMPLETE, AND IMPERFECT FORMS OF ISLAM ITSELF, and therefore as containing a genuine if distorted divine revelation. The inclusion of the not very precisely identified Sabians made it possible, by legal interpretation, to extend the kind of tolerance accorded to Jews and Christians much more widely, first to Zoroastrians in Persia, later to Hindus in India and other groups elsewhere. Communities professing recognized religions were allowed the tolerance of the Islamic state. They were allowed to practice their religions, subject to certain conditions, and to enjoy a measure of communal autonomy... The political classification was between those who had been conquered or who had submitted themselves to the power of Islam and those who had not. In Muslim law and practice, the relationship between the Muslim state and the subject non-Muslim communities to which it extended its tolerance and protection was regulated by a pact called dhimma, and those benefiting from this pact were known as ahl al-dhimma (people of the pact) or more briefly, dhimmis. (pgs: 15-21)
Posted on: Sun, 07 Dec 2014 00:41:53 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015